<p>
</p>
<p>BTW, I would guess that if you asked any reasonably competent administrator who they would fire if they could, the answer would not surprise a lot of teachers, students and maybe even parents (depending on the school district).</p>
<p>I still have to ask - who is going to want to be a teacher in CA with no tenure? </p>
<p>I don’t live in CA but my BFF does. She is a teacher (but in Camp Pendleton.) All 3 of her kids went to public schools in CA. As soon as Prop 13 passed her kids school’s started going rapidly downhill. I remember her telling me her kid’s elementary school classrooms had 35-40 kids in it (as opposed to my kid’s class of 18 kids) and how kids in my district who got remedial help wouldn’t even qualify for it in CA. </p>
<p>The people of CA ruined their schools by being penny wise and pound foolish. I see this as simply the latest in a continuation of bad choices they support. </p>
<p>If it is still sunny and 75 many will still want to be teachers in CA. Most other professional jobs have no employment protection either. Employed at will is the rule in the business world.</p>
<p>Outside of teachers and govt employees, virtually everyone I know wanted their job without tenure. To those who think teaching would be a miserable job, or not worth doing unless it was guaranteed for life, I say good riddance. </p>
<p>We shall see what the effect of this will be. I think it will result in even more overcrowding of classes due to a shortage of teachers and high rate of turnover as teachers with little experience come and go. </p>
<p>We may never get to see the result, if the decision is appealed and overturned. </p>
<p>^ If that happens, I’m sure whomever is behind this will think of something else with which to screw the teachers. </p>
<p>I think nobody wants bad teachers out more than good teachers. It’s administrators who are failing students when they hire poorly and retain idiots. California clearly hands it out waaay too early to separate truly awful from simply inexperienced. And it is probably admins job to support and train the teachers who are falling short as evidenced by something other than test results. </p>
<p>But nobody keeps their job solely because of tenure. They may keep their job because administrators are unwilling to do the work, but tenure simply does not protect incompetent teachers. But when parents ask a teacher to stand up for their child against the school or another teacher or another child and they hear, “I’m sorry. I can’t. I’m afraid I would lose my job,” then parents will understand what tenure is for.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay, that would be hilarious if I saw a teacher playing WoW in high school while showing a movie, but I had a few who did whole movie/other garbage and 0 teaching throughout the whole semester kind of thing. It was great until about 11th grade when it was just like “Seriously, I have stuff to do, can I just leave?” kind of thing. </p>
<p>Thankfully it was just a few, most did actually teach something. </p>
<p>I’ve lived in CA and had my three kids in and out of public schools for 24 years, and I’ve never heard of a teacher ever being fired, so I don’t know how anyone can claim to know anything about what will happen if and when teachers with no tenure stand up for kids. </p>
<p>The question is not what teachers deserve, or even, primarily whether or not eliminating tenure will lead to firing expensive but effective teachers. The question is whether or not we value getting good people to go into the profession. If really successful teachers were making 250K a year, then by all means get rid of tenure, and pensions too. Plenty of people would take the risk for the chance at that kind of money. </p>
<p>Even as it is, however, teaching is not the first choice for most of the best and brightest. Sure, there are some very bright people for whom teaching is calling and a dream, and those people will go into the profession anyway, as will some great people who wound up unhappy or unsuccessful in a different line of work. But in the meantime, my cousin, who barely managed a 3.0 GPA in college taking a pretty easy complement of classes, and who could never have thought of law school, med school, or high finance, had no trouble becoming a public school teacher, and that’s in a state with fairly good schools. </p>
<p>In my ideal world, we’d start gradually making standards for incoming teachers harder while also making the profession correspondingly more attractive. In the meantime, stick-without-carrot might work on a captive animal, but not on most people smart enough to have other alternatives.</p>
<p>If you want to make it easier to fire someone for cause, make it easier to fire someone for cause. Make the timeline to tenure longer, and be more selective in who gets it. But don’t create a system in which you can be fired at will for no reason at all and note expect a profession whose main selling point, practically speaking, was its security not to become even less attractive than it currently is. </p>
<p>"…make it easier to fire for cause."</p>
<p>Great, I’m sure the teacher unions will jump on that bandwagon. Not. </p>
<p>People had to bankroll a lawsuit on Constituonal grounds to make any headway at all </p>
<p>I’m all for paying teachers more, but not crappy teachers. </p>
<p>I think we need to have teacher training reform to attract the best and the brightest.
The state should provide scholarships for college students majoring in education.</p>
<p>We don’t need the school board in each school district. There are already superintendents and administrative staffs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know.
Who wants to be an accountant without tenure?
Or a social worker, or a pharmacist, or a banker, or a clergyman, or a plumber, or a doctor, or a researcher, or a cab driver, or a carpenter, or a rocket scientist, or a VP of Marketing, or a doctor without borders or a programmer, or an HR professional, or…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The point of the ruling is that the system is screwing the students, especially those in lower income areas.</p>
<p>The teachers who would be screwed by this ruling are those that are either aggressively managed or ultimately fired due to poor performance. </p>
<p>Strong, and even average performers would benefit, which ultimately benefits the students and the country.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True.
In some states, tenure also protects incompetent administrators who aren’t doing their jobs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even if you could actually get the best and the brightest into teaching K-12, is that really the best use of the best and brightest? How much value is there in having the best and the brightest in K-12 education over, say, the slightly better and slightly smarter than average? </p>
<p>And regardless, you’re going to have a hard time getting the best and brightest into K-12 education. Scholarships for education majors ain’t gonna do it by a long shot. </p>
<p>
…
</p>
<p>The second statement explains the first. I don’t know that the best and brightest are motivated by job security.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are far better carrots for the “best and brightest” who have a lot of alternatives than “you can work in an environment with other people who we have a hard time firing”. As @greenbutton pointed out: “I think nobody wants bad teachers out more than good teachers”</p>
<p>I don’t know.
Who wants to be an accountant without tenure?
Or a social worker, or a pharmacist, or a banker, or a clergyman, or a plumber, or a doctor, or a researcher, or a cab driver, or a carpenter, or a rocket scientist, or a VP of Marketing, or a doctor without borders or a programmer, or an HR professional, or… </p>
<p>Most of those professions pay more than what teachers make, in some cases way more. </p>
<p>But hey, no skin off my nose if CA get rid of tenure. I don’t live there. I just believe it will end up with a teacher shortage and filling the void with inexperienced teachers, along with lots of turn over. </p>
<p>“In my ideal world, we’d start gradually making standards for incoming teachers harder while also making the profession correspondingly more attractive.”</p>
<p>Same here. I’d like to see starting salaries doubled and dozens of A students competing for each job. We wouldn’t need tenure. But my vote for a tax increase to be used this way would likely be a pretty lonely vote.</p>
<p>I agree that good teachers hate bad teachers. I’d like to see good teachers push their unions to adopt policies that don’t protect bad teachers so fiercely.</p>